It must be remarked here that the multiplication of sub-post offices and receiving-houses, implied in what has just been mentioned, would have been very much more costly had not the expense been controlled by established rules based on sound principles. It has already been shown that the old plan of considering every case "according to its merits," to use the official expression, that is to say, of fixing the salary of A without ever inquiring how much was paid to B, C, or D, for equal service, had been to a considerable extent superseded by fixed scales. But we now went fully into the matter and brought the system to completion, thus providing a satisfactory guide available not only for new offices but also for any increase of duty at those already established; an arrangement which removed many anomalies and also saved much valuable time. The care with which the work was done is attested by the fact that up to the present time the scales, so far as I am aware, have undergone little or no modification, and have even been used for higher offices than those for which they were originally intended. Like benefit was derived from a scale prepared, about the same time, for regulating the amount of security demanded from postmasters according to the extent and frequency of their opportunities for defrauding the revenue; a scale which is, I believe, still in force. _Predictions Fulfilled._ It may be remembered that, in my evidence before the Parliamentary Committee of 1838, I expressed a confident anticipation that, if penny postage were adopted, the public would, after a while, expend as much in postage as under the old system, and consequently that the gross revenue would, in the end, be made good. This anticipation was more than realized in the year 1851.[156]